I thought that SHIELD was founded after WWII. I hope they don't force SHIELD in Cap.

I agree that BW could've been written out of the film, but I don't agree that she was useless in film. There's a difference. Whether you like it or not, it was her that unlocked Rhodey. She wasn't completely useless. But I like that she was in the film and she didn't really take away from anything. She served her purpose and I have no problem with her in the film. And with that logic of her being replaced with someone else, I could say that for many characters in many different films, so I wonder why people always say that.

I do agree that the attraction thing was pretty useless, though I think the editors did a good job of getting rid of most of the scenes that hint at it.

She may have unlocked Rhodey, but that doesn't make her really useful. What it means when people point that out is would the film be effected if they were removed entirely. In her case, no it wouldn't. Now, had other minor roles like Fury been removed, the film WOULD have been effected. He was essential to the father angle. However, she really had no true purpose in the film. When you're putting characters in a movie, big role or small, all characters should have a purpose for being in the film. Widow seems more like a distraction than an addition in IM2, and given for all her screentime she has no character and basically hits a few buttons, they was useless.

I am not saying that to make IM2 out to be bad. I like the movie, but her lack of things to do and overall purpose passed being hot is something that sticks out about it.

Quote:

BR would definitely be lower

As a person who uses RT and metacritic a lot, I like using it for newer films. I'm not making up my own mind to see a film if I'm paying $12 for it and it ends up sucking. Plus, RT and metacritic are usually accurate when it comes to films with high and low ratings. The ones with average ratings are the ones that are usually toss ups.

I still say BR gets unjust hate. I like it. I don't use RT unless it is something I am on the fence about seeing, and even then, I don't let reviews sway me if I end up watching the movie. However, too many people use it as a way to justify their opinion, and that is not how you should use it.

Cap could. Remember, they said Howard Stark was a founding member of SHIELD. They could try and have SHIELD founded in Cap.

As for Widow, she really does have a not necessary role in the film. She offers nothing Agent Coulson couldn't have. The whole thing about her being in legal could have been written out of the script, and the movie abandons Stark's attraction to her halfway into the film. Even when she goes to get Vanko, all she does is beat up henchmen (that are not in the main fight) and unlock Rhodey from the computer. Rhodey could have been unlocked by the Stark hackers at the expo, as opposed to Widow.

She could have been written out of the movie without having any effect. She was useless.

Coulson couldnt have spied on Stark because his cover was already exposed in IM1. Also, it seemed that nobody could hack into Vanko's systems unless they were using his computer. Which makes sense since he was supposed to be good with computers. So someone had to go there and do that and i doubt that Coulson could have done it. Its not mentioned in the movie so i dont know if it applies, but in the comics Natasha is enhanced like Captain America is. And it was cool, so what's the problem?

I dont see why you guys whine about Natasha. This is the most stupid bandwagon to jump on. "Without Natasha, the film would have been the same. Many posters claim that so i must agree!"
No it wouldnt have been the same and i just explained why. Now if you want to go and change the script so that Natasha wouldnt be needed, fine, but dont pretend that she was useless.

But even if she was, they found a way to use one more comic book character and use her well. What the hell is people's problem? I'm pretty sure that TDK would have been the same without Scarecrow, Maroni, etc. And seeing how Ironman had those lasers, Warmachine wasnt needed to take down the drones! Warmachine shouldnt have been in the movie! The movie sucks!

Get used to superheroes guest starring in each other's movies. Its how its going to be from now on.

Maroni was essential in TDK. He was the face of the mob that Gordon/Batman/Dent formed the alliance to stop. As for Scarecrow, it is not a great comparison. He didn't get NEARLY the screentime Widow did, and even there, he served the purpose of showing how Gotham was changing from typical thugs/gangs to freaks and people more willing to stand up to the Bat (he said Batman took out all other people to buy from).

Coulson could have spied on Stark from afar. As for tech prowess...we had hackers working for Stark trying to break in at the expo. Someone could have broken the connection there, as opposed to having to go to Hammer's building. Or, Iron Man could have did it by defeating Rhodey and doing some kind of high impact move that broke the connection. There were ways around it.

Even if Natasha was not needed, her presence was definitely not offensive so i dont see why so many of you whine about it. Could it have been some other agent? Sure. But why would you use some random agent when you can use her, a character so loved by all the fans? And lets not forget the added bonus of Scarlett's looks and her great fighting scene that puts Nolan's Batman to shame.

Maroni was essential in TDK. He was the face of the mob that Gordon/Batman/Dent formed the alliance to stop. As for Scarecrow, it is not a great comparison. He didn't get NEARLY the screentime Widow did, and even there, he served the purpose of showing how Gotham was changing from typical thugs/gangs to freaks and people more willing to stand up to the Bat (he said Batman took out all other people to buy from).

Coulson could have spied on Stark from afar. As for tech prowess...we had hackers working for Stark trying to break in at the expo. Someone could have broken the connection there, as opposed to having to go to Hammer's building. Or, Iron Man could have did it by defeating Rhodey and doing some kind of high impact move that broke the connection. There were ways around it.

Now you're trying to completely change story aspects to write her out. I can still say the same for Maroni. We could've gave those scenes to Chechen, or we could've gotten rid of him from the script completely as Gamble and Chechen were examples of the change too. Its a little ridiculous to suggest alternatives when she worked for the film. You act as if she was getting major focus in the film.

She didn't ruin the movie so I wonder why people are complaining about this. People act like she had gotten more screentime than Stark.

Even if Natasha was not needed, her presence was definitely not offensive so i dont see why so many of you whine about it. Could it have been some other agent? Sure. But why would you use some random agent when you can use her, a character so loved by all the fans? And lets not forget the added bonus of Scarlett's looks and her great fighting scene that puts Nolan's Batman to shame.

I'm not trying to say IM needs to be more like the Batman's or make this a TDK discussion. I only even commented on TDK cause you cited examples from it.

I wouldn't mention anything about her if it wasn't for the amount of screentime she had. She had too much screentime to not get more development or be used for things less developed characters could have done and been less distracting.

Like I said before, I enjoyed IM2. But, just because I liked it doesn't mean I didn't see flaws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

Now you're trying to completely change story aspects to write her out. I can still say the same for Maroni. We could've gave those scenes to Chechen, or we could've gotten rid of him from the script completely as Gamble and Chechen were examples of the change too. Its a little ridiculous to suggest alternatives when she worked for the film. You act as if she was getting major focus in the film.

She didn't ruin the movie so I wonder why people are complaining about this. People act like she had gotten more screentime than Stark.

Gamble and Chechen served other purposes.

I really don't want to make this a TDK discussion, please don't ask me to go into more detail on it

I didn't say she ruined the movie. But, she was a flaw. She either needed character development (given the amount of time she had on screen) or written out completely.

Why did she need character development? Did Fury have any? Did Coulson or Tony's mentor (cant remember his name) have any in IM1?
She was there to spy on Tony and she did that. She was a supporting character to the story and she did just fine.

Does a character have to have development in order to be in a movie? Cause i know thousands of good supporting characters who dont get any development.

I think the problem is that people were expecting more than they got of BW. I was fine with how she was used. She wasn't the focus of the film, so why are people complaining that she had too little to do. The main focus was on Stark, Pepper, Rhodey, Hammer, and Vanko. Like I said several times, she served her purpose.

In a movie that had so much going on, her inclusion took up too much space away from the rest of the bits that were essential and could've been replaced by very minor plot adjustments. That was the one major flaw I thought walking out of the movie.

So people are saying that she didn't get much development, and others are saying she took too much space away from other parts of the film. Which one is it guys?

I disagree that she took too much space. I think there could've been other scenes that could've been taken out.

For example (and this pains me because I actually love the scene), the drunk Tony-Rhodey fight could've been taken out or shortened. And the press conference scene could've been shortened too imo. There could've been things that were shortened.

Why did she need character development? Did Fury have any? Did Coulson or Tony's mentor (cant remember his name) have any in IM1?
She was there to spy on Tony and she did that. She was a supporting character to the story and she did just fine.

Does a character have to have development in order to be in a movie? Cause i know thousands of good supporting characters who dont get any development.

When you're in as much of the film as she was, YES! Yinsen and Fury have valuable screentime and move the plot along, while at the same time revealing things about themselves and Tony. Widow doesn't do that. She is just...there. Look at Fury. You got feel for his character and learned things about him and his history with SHIELD, and he is in the film no more than 5 mins. Same with Yinsen in IM1. There is being in the movie for a reason and to bring something out of a character, and then there is just being in the movie. Widow is just in the movie. I would have preferred she had a moment in the film like Fury had when he discussed his father and asked if he was the man his father described. I wish she had 1 moment like in IM1 like ANY of Yinsen's scenes that challenged the man Stark was and to bring him to change. With all the screentime she had in the movie, she should have had a moment like that. Coulson is in the film for like...1 minute, while Widow is in a good portion of the film. She needed more to do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

I think the problem is that people were expecting more than they got of BW. I was fine with how she was used. She wasn't the focus of the film, so why are people complaining that she had too little to do. The main focus was on Stark, Pepper, Rhodey, Hammer, and Vanko. Like I said several times, she served her purpose.

She was given too much screentime for such a minimal purpose. I never felt like Stark, Pepper, Rhodey, Hammer, or Vanko had wasted screentime. Nor Fury. Nor Yinsen. Just her.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HappyPalooza

In a movie that had so much going on, her inclusion took up too much space away from the rest of the bits that were essential and could've been replaced by very minor plot adjustments. That was the one major flaw I thought walking out of the movie.

This is exactly what I am saying. With the amount of screentime she was given, she didn't contribute enough to the film. If you give a character that much screentime, they need developed.

Okay, my mistake man. I still liked Iron Man 2, but at the same time I just think that there were bigger problems with the movie than BW.

There are, but Black Widow is certainly one of them. I think it would have been better to minimize her role if not make it a cameo, because then the lack of a character arc would make more sense and be less distracting.

When you're in as much of the film as she was, YES! Yinsen and Fury have valuable screentime and move the plot along, while at the same time revealing things about themselves and Tony. Widow doesn't do that. She is just...there. Look at Fury. You got feel for his character and learned things about him and his history with SHIELD, and he is in the film no more than 5 mins. Same with Yinsen in IM1. There is being in the movie for a reason and to bring something out of a character, and then there is just being in the movie. Widow is just in the movie. I would have preferred she had a moment in the film like Fury had when he discussed his father and asked if he was the man his father described. I wish she had 1 moment like in IM1 like ANY of Yinsen's scenes that challenged the man Stark was and to bring him to change. With all the screentime she had in the movie, she should have had a moment like that. Coulson is in the film for like...1 minute, while Widow is in a good portion of the film. She needed more to do.

She was given too much screentime for such a minimal purpose. I never felt like Stark, Pepper, Rhodey, Hammer, or Vanko had wasted screentime. Nor Fury. Nor Yinsen. Just her.

This is exactly what I am saying. With the amount of screentime she was given, she didn't contribute enough to the film. If you give a character that much screentime, they need developed.

Maybe she did need one scene to show who she really was, with Tony using his usual charm to charm it out of her. She did help get Tony drunk

I just want to say that that I hope Fav's gets a better screenwriter for IM3 and realizes that less is more. It will be post a post Avengers film so he won't have to worry about building up to that. I just hope that Therox guy gets replaced.

When you're in as much of the film as she was, YES! Yinsen and Fury have valuable screentime and move the plot along, while at the same time revealing things about themselves and Tony. Widow doesn't do that. She is just...there.

That was the point. She was there to spy, not steal the scenes.

Quote:

There is being in the movie for a reason and to bring something out of a character, and then there is just being in the movie. Widow is just in the movie.

She had a reason. SHIELD needed someone to spy on Stark now that Coulson has compromised his identity. And who could have been better than a super spy hottie that would instantly get Tony's attention and he would give her a job next to him?
She reported back to Fury about everything going on, so they came when Tony lost it, and then she helped him by rebooting WM.

Quote:

I would have preferred she had a moment in the film like Fury had when he discussed his father and asked if he was the man his father described. I wish she had 1 moment like in IM1 like ANY of Yinsen's scenes that challenged the man Stark was and to bring him to change. With all the screentime she had in the movie, she should have had a moment like that.

Why, why, why, why?
Why does a character need to change the protagonist to be in the movie? Did the Chechen or Maroni do that to Batman? She had a role and her role was to spy and help Tony. And she did that. She was part of SHIELD along with Coulson and Fury and SHIELD had a bigger role this time. Dont look at her as "Natasha", but as Shield. It could have been any other agent because the plot required someone to be there and report to Fury so that he could come and save Tony later.

Not every character has to tell us about his/her childhood or affect the protagonist.

Quote:

This is exactly what I am saying. With the amount of screentime she was given, she didn't contribute enough to the film. If you give a character that much screentime, they need developed.

But she was just there spying while other things were happening. She didnt take the scenes to herself and do nothing with them. She was there in the background with Happy while Tony was talking with Pepper, she was there to help Pepper leave the mansion when Tony was duking it out with Rhodes, she was there when Tony and Pepper were talking in her office, etc.
She never had a scene to herself other than two occasions:
1) "How would you celebrate your last birthday?"
2) Her fight scene.

Black Widow served her purpose, as well as serving as a nod to Iron Man's history and as a character that will be in Avengers. What would REALLY be unnecessary and distracting would be giving her screentime and "development" she didnt need.

Its funny. Fillmakers do these things for fans, try to replicate the comics in movies, and then fans complain. Sigh

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by hafizbat

Welcome to the Batman v Superman forums, where people will take a perfectly reasonable comment you make and twist it into something completely different to make themselves feel better.

It seems to be following in the vain of the Blade series, where the First film was insanely good and the sequels just couldn't compete. Which doesn't make them bad movies, just not as good as the their predecessor.

IM2 seemed too concerned with setting up the Avengers spinoff then actually building its own stories with key characters like Rhodey/WM.

Gives you the feeling that Incredible Hulk 2 or even Thor will just simply be platforms to build on the Avengers film.

__________________
Every man has a dark side to him. The brighter the picture... the DARKER the negative.